Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-19

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi Al,

Okay to all! About the experts. How should we figure out other experts? Do have people in mind? Should I approach them, do you want too speak to them directly? 

Mirja



> On 8. Sep 2019, at 00:09, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mirja,
> Catching-up with your comments on the registry draft.
> Please see replies below, and thanks again for your review.
> Al
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mirja Kuehlewind [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 9:44 AM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: IETF IPPM WG <[e-mail]>; Michelle Cotton
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-19
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I just reviewed draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-19. Thanks for the well-
>> written document! I have one process question on the following part before
>> we can move ahead:
>> 
>> Sec 8.1:
>>  "Submission to IANA MAY be the result of IETF Standards Action, where
>>   an approved Internet Draft proposes one or more Registered
>>   Performance Metrics to be added to the Performance Metrics Registry,
>>   including the text of the proposed Registered Performance Metric(s).”
>> 
>> Maybe I’m confused but I would think that as soon as a document is
>> approved by the IESG, it’s too late for an Expert review because an
>> approved RFC that contains instruction for IANA will usually be
>> implemented by IANA as approved. I believe what we usually do is to
>> request the new entry before IESG evaluation and simply document in the
>> RFC that an registration was performed, or in case of e.g. the port
>> registry (where however the policy is IETF Review for system ports) we ask
>> the experts for review during the IESG evaluation process and take this as
>> input for the IESG to make a decision on approval (rather than as input
>> for IANA). I’m cc’ing Michelle, as I understood that she was already
>> involved in reviewing this document, and she might have further
>> insights/considerations.
> [acm] 
> I agree, here's what I changed the working text to read:
> 
> Submission to IANA MAY be during IESG review (leading to IETF 
> Standards Action), where an Internet Draft proposes one or ...
> 
>> 
>> Also on experts: Did the group/chairs/authors already consider possible
>> candidates? If not, is anybody of the author team willing to serve? I
>> assume having 2 experts should be sufficient, right?
> [acm] 
> Yes, I assume I'll act as one of the experts, and we'll need a few more 
> who can share the load, especially if a quick response is required.
> 
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> Mirja
>> 
>> P.S.: Two nits:
>> - sec 7.3.2: "The packet generation stream may require parameters such as
>> the the average packet rate …” -> two “the”
>> - sec 8.2: "why the existing entry shuold be revised” -> s/shuold/should/
> [acm] 
> thanks, fixed.
> 
> Other Questions arose:
> 
> Sorry one more thing on references: There are two normative reference to obsoleted RFC (RFC2141 and RFC4148). I think it would be more appropriate to make these references informational instead. Also there is a new Downref to RFC6248, however, I think that could also be an informational reference instead.
> 
> [acm]
> I agree, I moved 4148 and 6248 to Info, can't find 2141 in the working text, 
> assume I deleted it with unused references. 
> 
> @Bill: as the document shepherd it would be could to point out these things in the shepherd write-up. If the authors/group decides to move these references to informational, there is no additional action require from you. However, if not, the write-up should be updated accordingly.
> 
> Thanks!
> Mirja
> 
> 
> Here are your questions for the registry
> that came-up during review of initial contents draft:
> 
>> 
>> And finally one/two/three more general question(s) at the end, that I
>> probably should also have asked already on my review for draft-ietf-ippm-
>> metric-registry:
>> 
>> Is it actually intended that basically all the text in this RFC gets
>> copied into the registry? 
> [acm]
> Sort of. All the text for each metric (section) is a file that the registry
> entry points to. Registry draft section 10.3 says:
> 
> The "URIs" column will have a URL to the full template of each registry entry. The Registry Entry text SHALL be HTML-ized to aid the reader, with links to reference RFCs (similar to the way that Internet Drafts are HTML-ized, the same tool can perform the function).
> 
>> And what is expected to be on the URL page then?
> [acm]
> The URL points to a page = one section of the -ippm-initial-registry draft.
> Future URLs might point to text from a section of an RFC for a new metric.
> 
>> Wouldn’t it be necessary to also define a format for that page in order to
>> be of any use?
> [acm]
> It's the "full template", filled-out for each registered metric.
> 
> It really helps to have the mock-up we worked-out with IANA
> available to see the "running code". I'll send you the mock-up
> in separate mail. We looked at this in several IPPM sessions 
> over the years, and on this one the header is fairly up to date,
> but the URLs point to "old" sections of the initial contents draft.
> Also, the column widths are not ideal in the mock-up.
> 
> It might help to have a live URL to the mocked-up registry
> that we can share with others (when this question comes up again,
> and it will during IESG review, I assure you!).
> 
> Al